Posted on 04/20/2010 9:07:43 AM PDT by bcsco
An illegal-alien day laborer who attacked a U.S. photographer at a notorious San Diego day labor site in 2006, was awarded $2,500 in damages for "defamation per se" by Judge Ronald Styn in a non-jury trial in San Diego Superior Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
“This really points up why we’re going to hell. Here we have an illegal alien (a criminal) who can use our courts to file a law suit against an American citizen and gain a monetary amount which will increase his country’s GDP by 10%. PURE INSANITY!!”
And the Mexican alien didn’t even have to show up in court!
No US citizen would ever get away with that. We are giving aliens rights above ours and outside the law. Every defendant has the right to face his accuser in court.
Unless the accuser is an illegal law breaking alien????
This can’t turn out well.
the definition of defamation is “false” information being spread about a person....seems to me, this was true....can he not appeal???
And here's another: Nifonging John Monti? in which it states 1) He was found 'not guilty', 2) The police report taken that day might have been the end of the matter had not Monti filed a grand jury complaint against the San Diego Police Department for failing to investigate human trafficking and child prostitution in McGonigle Canyon. That complaint was filed March 1. Four weeks later (and four months after the original incident) Aguirre's office put out a press bulletin announcing in bold letters that charges were being filed “Against a member of the Minutemen Project."
So, we have a 'he said-they said issue between a photographer and illegals, the photographer is found not guilty at a trial proceeding from charges made only after the photographer filed a complaint against the SDPD.
And you want to defend the illegal plaintiff in this new trial? And then say I should be embarrassed? Yeah, right.
He's going to...
Monti was not, in fact, a member of the Minutemen, though he was affiliated with the anti-illegal group, Save Our State. Still, by erroneously highlighting the Minutemen, Aguirre's office bolstered the suspicion that impartial legal judgment wasn't what informed its prosecutorial decision. What later become clear was that the case against Monti was actively promoted by Claudia Smith, an open border activist and executive director of California Rural Legal Assistance in Oceanside.
And this...
Having been declared "not guilty" by a jury, Monti now faces a civil suit brought by the same CRLA lawyer who appeared with Claudia Smith when she announced on Fox News what Aguirre was going to do, prosecution-wise - two weeks later.
And we now know from the most current article that's the subject of this thread, that that civil suit was dismissed against Monti, and Fox News.
I provided you with two reports providing details on who was charged with crimes in this incident. Those charges are a matter of public record. I gave you that information in response to your statement that anybody who was charged with a crime was a criminal, and to your claim that Jimenez had been tried on criminal charges.
Had you taken even a moment to read either of those stories, you would have realized that you’d misread the original article and that it was Monti who’d faced criminal charges in the incident, Jimenez. You might also have discovered the foolishness of your claim that anyone charged with a crime is a criminal since, in point of fact, Monti was found not guilty of all charges.
Your bias has lead you to misread the original story, summarily reject two other stories that set the record straight on who was charged and for what, and you’re now announcing that you’re going to believe whatever you want to believe regardless of the reality. That’s fine, but it doesn’t change the fact, as stated in my original post, that the case doesn’t revolve around whether using “criminal” to describe an illegal alien is defamatory. That is, and remains, my point.
An Al Qaeda leader could walk across the border and win a case with liberal judges and lawyers.
The only way leftist bureaucrats could get anymore insane is if they wore plastic and participated in cannibalism...oh wait. Some of them do that.
Second ‘graf’, that’s “NOT Jimenez”
I think it was either 2007 or 2008 where 86% of the 9th Circus’s rulings were overturned by the Supreme Court.
Yes, I misread the original article. And yes, the fact that Monti was criminally charged would, at the time, make me think of him as a likely criminal. And if you think that 'innocent until proven guilty' is a proven notion outside a court of law (and sometimes even in a court of law), you are sadly mistaken. That doesn't mean bias toward illegals, aliens, Hispanic or otherwise.
But the fact remains, you used pro-illegal websites and information, and ignored the fact that Monti was found not guilty. You never brought that out; I did. You also never brought forth the fact that the charges against him were possibly politically motivated. So, with that in mind, who's not giving the benefit of the doubt? I'd say you were as biased toward him as I was toward the plaintiff, yet I at least held true to the final outcome.
The facts of the matter are: 1) There were altercations in 2006 between a group of people who were here illegally and a photographer (If they'd stayed in their own country, this wouldn't have happened...). 2) It wasn't until 2007 that charges were filed against the photographer, and only after he filed a suit against the SDPD. 3) He was found not guilty of those charges (which were possibly politically motivated by a pro-illegal defense group, and used by the DA for his own purposes). 4) Those filed charges against him also filed a civil suit against the photographer and Fox News, but those who were named plaintiffs in that case, to a man dropped that suit; only one of them continuing it against someone else who wasn't even involved in the original altercation, but was sued for 'defamation' because of an email he sent to law enforcement officials.
You can say what you want about me. I don't give a damn. But I'll say this about you, you have a real pro-illegal immigrant bent. And you've been free and loose with disseminating information here. You only post what you want to have seen; not the whole facts for sure. Something I'll keep in mind for the future.
Thank you....and thank you for not flaming me for not reading the whole article ;0)
Nope. IIRC, he’s no more a “criminal” for illegally entering the US than you or I would be for speeding. He broke a “regulation” rather than a “law” at least for a first offense. I think it only becomes “criminal” after repeat offenses. A legal beagle might be able to provide more info.
I believe that law should be be changed so that illegally entering the country is a felony, but the law is what it is.
Ping!
IT WENT UP HIS NOSE
Well, you don't recall correctly. Entering the United States without permission and or outside a federally approved location is against federal statute. The first offense is punishable by up to 6 months imprisonment. Subsequent convictions are punishable by up to two years imprisonment.
The commission of any offense that is punishable by confinement is a crime. Speeding is usually not punishable by confinement and is therefore not a crime. Entering the United States without permission is a crime and anyone who does it is, by definition, a criminal.
The Royal Province of New York v. John Peter Zenger. The charge, Seditious Libel of the Royal Governor. Andrew Hamilton of Philadelphia defending. The defendant’s argument”The TRUTH of an accusation or allegation shall be a defense against libel or defamation,
The verdict; Not Guilty!
Your assertion allows for all kinds of exceptions to the 1st amendment, depending on a judge's whim. If a judge rules that the word "irresponsible" can be "defamation per se," as in "Pelosi is irresponsible," that doesn't have anything to do with the 1st amendment?
The story as written gives the impression that the plaintiff was on trial in 2007. And Monti is named the ‘victim’ throughout the article. It was only subsequently that it came out that the opposite was true regarding the 2007 trial. I see no reason to be sorry for misinterpreting that.
As for the term ‘criminal’, again, it was a ‘he said-they said’ situation, and regardless of who was attacked it was a criminal act. I’m not a court of law, and if I see something I believe to be criminal, I’ll call it as such. And no apologies. I’d have said the same if it had been Monti that the story implied. ArmstedFragg wants to label me biased. I suspect he’s an illegal-alien supporter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.